Now despite all the guys being like 'yeah but vinyl, come on...'
Great posting! The limitations vinyl forces you into are good limitations. You fuck up deessing the vocals, you have no pleasing high end roll of, you overcompress and so on: Your mix will sound horrible on vinyl. On digital media it will just sound bad.
The vinyl print will exactly sound as your master if you do a good mix. And that good mix will sound good in the digital domain too.

Please guys. Whoever bashes that posting now: Do a research on how vinyl is cut. it will enlighten you. it is NOT about some high end hifi new age shit. if your music manages to be transferred to vinyl in a pleasing way it will manage to be captured by eardrums in a pleasing way.

 

Last edited: Dec 23, 2016

If that's referring to me then you're wrong - that wasn't what I was saying.

It doesn't matter how many measurements you take, the fact is this: whether something sounds "better" or not to any individual has nothing to do with the science of sound, or the technology of recording and replaying stuff. Measure whatever you like about sound sources, recordings, amplifiers and speakers......none of it has anything to do with whether somebody thinks it is "better" than different sounds with different measurements, etc.

Where is the science that says more dynamics are "better"? That lower noise is "better"? Or anything else one can measure is "better" for being higher or lower? Just because some measurement provides higher numbers or ranges of numbers how does that make it objectively "better"? The only test is how it sounds to an individual. There is no science to say what "sounds good" or not.

Likewise, the science of colour has nothing to do with whether a painting is considered good by an individual, or not. The science behind watercolour and oils is different, but in no way can the science determine which is the "better" medium. If someone prefers watercolours, nobody can say that oil better captures and reflects light thus providing deeper blues is "better". Yes, there are technical and physical means to get deeper blues, but does that make the blues "better"? According to what, or whom?

If you take some scans of various paintings and measure the various reflections of light at various wavelengths, what will that tell you about the paintings? Nothing. The science of a rainbow has nothing to do with how pleasant they look. The science describes how a rainbow comes about - but science has absolutely nothing to say about how an individual perceives a rainbow - science can say nothing about whether an individual thinks it is "better" than an overcast sky. It isn't "better", just different. And how is one rainbow objectively "better" than another? It isn't. If someone likes them brighter and deeper in colour, then *they* can think it is "better".......but there is no objective measure of "better". It's a subjective term when talking about human experience. You can set up arbitrary measures, and say deeper colours (or greater dynamics) are "better" - but they are *your* arbitrary definitions of "better".

Likewise with sound.

 

Last edited: Dec 24, 2016

martel80, thanks for the uploads! Just grabbed Back in Black. Do me a favor and listen to it again. For some reason it's playing only in mono on my system. I haven't finished setting this system up yet but the few cd's I have played on it sound fine so far. It's either your rip or my system and need to know which it is. About to rip my cd copy of BiB to try. Thanks again for your hard work, much appreciated!

 

Mystery solved, it's the sample rate. Your file is fine and that's good to know. That's why we use reference tracks!

 

There's a few things, actually. Because of the nature of pressing vinyl -- the inside tracks actually sloping higher frequencies as you get closer to the spindle -- the mastering engineer will actually increase the high frequency shelf on those tracks to compensate. The bass is collapsed to mono. It also depends on the deck you're recording from. The needle cartridge might be inferior, the motor might not be calibrated properly, the preamps might be lousy, the deck might sitting at a slight angle, all affecting how the music sounds by the time it is being digitally recorded.

If you're already going to FLAC sites, you should just start checking out HD sites. Here's an article that talks about where to go ...

 

Last edited: Dec 24, 2016

I don't dispute sound is a physical phenomena. Nor do I dispute the brain is physical. I'm just saying perception is a different matter. There's no science that can tell if greater dynamics are "better" or not - it can only say if they physically exist or not. It can measure dBs and suchlike, but Science cannot say whether it's "good" or "bad". You can say what's good or bad, but that isn't science, it's your opinion.

Consciousness is not yet explained - the "hard problem" of how stimuli are turned into mental experience is not at all resolved and is essentially completely independent to the science of waves, noise levels, dBs, frequencies, whatever. There's no proper explanation for what happens between waves entering a human ear and what comes out of the human: "Yeah, sounds great!" You certainly will not find the answer in the science of waves etc, nor from knowledge of the physical ear.

'Psycho' investigations largely rely on asking a subject, "What did you notice?" You can't take the listener out of it. Simple experiments can tell you "what most people like" etc. If what most people like is "good", then distortion, MP3 and LOUDNESS are "good" - by dint of them being popular. (One has to assume the loud war happened because it sold more records - people like it). And nobody can tell 192K from 48k in blind tests, apparently. So, the idea that "good" can be measured and graphed is as misplaced as getting precious about it is.

OTOH, I'm sure we can agree on this: why not try to get the "best" you can? ;)

 

martel80, Yes it's the sample rate on my end. This card only goes up to 96k so anything above that it doesn't like. Good to know! Once again, thanks for taking the time to upload and Merry Christmas.

 

Thanks for the music. I downloaded the Floyd, and let me tell you, I am still excited about every single note of every single song on Dark Side Of The Moon exactly the same way and to the same degree as was the first time I listened to it through my Radio Shack Realistic headphones as my best friend Seth eagerly awaited my reaction, and I, nearly jumping out of my seat when the alarm bells went off in Time, would never be the same again. It was 44 years and it still awes me every time. It isn't just a reference for mixing, but THE reference of my life.

 

HA has a comprehensive FAQ about LPs myths http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)

 

Most of the HD sites are using specially-made masters that are more in line with the vinyl recordings you seem to be a champion of, that why I'm recommending them. Their belief is that you have to record the masters at 96 kHz/24-bit from the original tapes, not the lower bit rates that CD or broadcast masters are taken from. And since they're intended for audiophiles, they're usually processed a lot less when mastered. There's also a fair amount of boutique companies around making new recordings at 96 kHz/24-bit and maintaining that sample rate and bit-depth all the way to the 96kHz/24-bit masters without a lot of compression or limiting specifically for the HD audio crowd. Like I said, look into it -- there's a few better options out there for HD example tracks than just FLAC recordings of vinyl records.

 

I am no expert on this subject like some of the guys here. But I have never heard an untreated vinyl rip that did not have that tell-tale vinyl scratchiness on it which I don't like at all. Just downloaded your Pink Floyd track "Money" and after a casual listening, to me it sounds like you have run this through a filter. So the obvious vinyl noise is not there and it sounded well rounded but at the expense of some frequencies. I then compared it to my 256kbps MP3 version and preferred the MP3 as it sounded more alive. I am talking about casual listening and not forensic scrutiny.So, while appreciating your seasonal efforts, I would therefore even prefer to use the MP3 as a reference myself.

 

I don't think that I can have to many Mozart Requiem so hit me with a link when you have the time
Ps. I have around 20 000 flac cds (many 180g vinyl rip) so I might have something for you in return ;)

Happy xmas to your all!
Cheers!

 

It'll take a while for most mainstream music to catch up (similar to how .mp3's started out), but the audiophile crowd is growing fast and demand for more stuff at 96kHz/24-bit is also growing. Hopefully, there will be a renaissance of consumers wanting to hear stuff at the highest fidelity possible, rather than the 128kbps AAC crap they buy off of iTunes or grab off an .mp3 site now.

 

This post could be somewhat interesting, but I dont like your bully attitude.
There is no need of showing off your “golden truth”, there is no need to humiliate anyone that express a different opinion: in a techy conversation like this, any point of view can be helpful.
So, “Mr Boaster”, put aside any antisocial behaviour and maybe all of us could follow your vision with more empathy

 

Oh, come off it, Martel80? Your avatar is about preventing child abuse, yet you seem pretty keen to abuse adults. Lay off the condescension, engage, and everyone's happy? In a previous thread (about MFSL) I raised reasons why people (such as myself) liked LOUD, why high dynamics aren't always "better", etc - and IMO you got shirty and condescending. For no reason.....from my perspective.

People don't like condescension. It gets their hackles up. Facts are facts and opinions are opinions. Having a different opinion about, or arguing the facts about inconsequential stuff like audio engineering really isn't grounds for condescension. Let it go? (You suggested earlier that you had got into arguments about this stuff in real life.......I'm not surprised. You don't have to belittle others whilst holding to your own view. If you're so brilliant (and you might be for all I know) and we plebs are so easy to squash.......why do it? Your refinement can speak for itself - why sully it?

 

But you needn't insult someone's mother as you do it. ;)

 

I don't see ingratitude, rather I see folk bumping up against your condescension: "the attitude or behaviour of people who believe they are more intelligent or better than other people"

As I said, if your refinement is so great it doesn't need condescension (and personal attacks) to show it. Quite the opposite?

You're rude - over matters that are inconsequential. It's just a discussion about facts and opinions on recordings....there is no justification for personal insult.

Why not treat your own soul as you do audio engineering? Why not seek the pure and pristine, rather than the crude and violent?

 

lol

Merry Christmas. :D

 

Come and Tell us How you feel about file format. PLEASE !!!(CLOSED)

this thread isn't closed!
Merry Christmas all

 

That would be 'SHUTTING' up once in a while for yourself?

A typical bully response.
You guys are mean, I'm taking my toys away.............

There are guys like Pensado and then there is this dude who has 'a shift'? Never heard of a session referred to as a 'shift'.

let's all feel sorry for this bitter dude.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 25, 2016